IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/ratsoc/v34y2022i3p395-418.html

Divisiveness, splintering, and the rational interpretation of text

Author

Listed:
  • Jacqueline Joslyn

Abstract

In a historical case study, this paper explores the mechanisms by which the rational interpretation of written text can produce divisiveness and splintering. The mechanisms of division are derived from theories of organizational rationality, cultural logics, organizational memory, and group conflict. The propositions are explored in an analysis of common sense rationality with a focus on the 19 th century Stone-Campbell movement. When emotions are not adequately integrated into the culture of rational interpretation, group conflict can arise. The material characteristics of written text combined with a high-diffusion, low-hierarchy, highly recorded and publicized, and proactively contentious, emotionally triggering environment creates a breeding ground for division. The analysis paints a multi-dimensional picture of division and splintering from a sociomaterial standpoint.

Suggested Citation

  • Jacqueline Joslyn, 2022. "Divisiveness, splintering, and the rational interpretation of text," Rationality and Society, , vol. 34(3), pages 395-418, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:ratsoc:v:34:y:2022:i:3:p:395-418
    DOI: 10.1177/10434631221113403
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/10434631221113403
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/10434631221113403?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Yossi Perelman & Meir Yaish & Benjamin Bental, 2019. "The price of religiosity: Enticing young Haredi men into secular academic studies," Rationality and Society, , vol. 31(2), pages 129-151, May.
    2. Sally Maitlis & Hakan Ozcelik, 2004. "Toxic Decision Processes: A Study of Emotion and Organizational Decision Making," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 15(4), pages 375-393, August.
    3. Jason Wollschleger, 2019. "Beyond strictness: Mainline protestant religious participation," Rationality and Society, , vol. 31(2), pages 182-203, May.
    4. James G. March, 1991. "Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 2(1), pages 71-87, February.
    5. Andrew Greenland & Damon Proulx & David A Savage, 2020. "Dying for the cause: The rationality of martyrs, suicide bombers and self-immolators," Rationality and Society, , vol. 32(1), pages 93-115, February.
    6. Theda Skocpol, 1980. "Political Response to Capitalist Crisis: Neo-Marxist Theories of the State and the Case of the New Deal," Politics & Society, , vol. 10(2), pages 155-201, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Zoe Jonassen & Vivianna Fang He & Georg von Krogh, 2026. "Good Lessons Despite Bad Feelings: How Boundary-Spanning Teams Learn from Collaboration Failure," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 37(1), pages 17-47, January.
    2. Guénin-Paracini, Henri & Malsch, Bertrand & Paillé, Anne Marché, 2014. "Fear and risk in the audit process," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 39(4), pages 264-288.
    3. Henri A. Schildt & Markku V.J. Maula & Thomas Keil, 2005. "Explorative and Exploitative Learning from External Corporate Ventures," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 29(4), pages 493-515, July.
    4. Insoo Cho & Peter F. Orazem, 2021. "How endogenous risk preferences and sample selection affect analysis of firm survival," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 56(4), pages 1309-1332, April.
    5. Son K. Lam & Thomas E. DeCarlo & Ashish Sharma, 2019. "Salesperson ambidexterity in customer engagement: do customer base characteristics matter?," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 47(4), pages 659-680, July.
    6. Bruneel, Johan & Clarysse, Bart & Bobelyn, Annelies & Wright, Mike, 2020. "Liquidity events and VC-backed academic spin-offs: The role of search alliances," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(10).
    7. Anne Corcos & Yorgos Rizopoulos, 2011. "Is prosocial behavior egocentric? The “invisible hand” of emotions," Post-Print halshs-01968213, HAL.
    8. Freeman, Steven F., 1997. "Good decisions : reconciling human rationality, evolution, and ethics," Working papers WP 3962-97., Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Sloan School of Management.
    9. Zhang, Feng & Jiang, Guohua & Cantwell, John A., 2015. "Subsidiary exploration and the innovative performance of large multinational corporations," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 24(2), pages 224-234.
    10. Liu, Zhiqiang & Yan, Miao & Fan, Youqing & Chen, Liling, 2021. "Ascribed or achieved? The role of birth order on innovative behaviour in the workplace," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 480-492.
    11. Boeker, Warren & Howard, Michael D. & Basu, Sandip & Sahaym, Arvin, 2021. "Interpersonal relationships, digital technologies, and innovation in entrepreneurial ventures," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 495-507.
    12. Keegan, A. & Turner, J.R., 2000. "Quantity versus Quality in Project Based Learning Practices," ERIM Report Series Research in Management ERS-2000-55-ORG, Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM), ERIM is the joint research institute of the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University and the Erasmus School of Economics (ESE) at Erasmus University Rotterdam.
    13. Carolina Rojas-Córdova & Amanda J. Williamson & Julio A. Pertuze & Gustavo Calvo, 2023. "Why one strategy does not fit all: a systematic review on exploration–exploitation in different organizational archetypes," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 17(7), pages 2251-2295, October.
    14. Robert P. Garrett Jr. & Jeffrey G. Covin, 2015. "Internal Corporate Venture Operations Independence and Performance: A Knowledge–Based Perspective," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 39(4), pages 763-790, July.
    15. Marco Valeri & Rodolfo Baggio, 2021. "A critical reflection on the adoption of blockchain in tourism," Information Technology & Tourism, Springer, vol. 23(2), pages 121-132, June.
    16. Trygve J. Steiro & Bjorn Andersen & Linda Solveig Olsvik & Per Johansen, 2013. "Balancing Structure and Learning in an Open Prison," International Journal of Management, Knowledge and Learning, ToKnowPress, vol. 2(1), pages 101-121.
    17. Sarv Devaraj & Robert F. Easley & J. Michael Crant, 2008. "Research Note ---How Does Personality Matter? Relating the Five-Factor Model to Technology Acceptance and Use," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 19(1), pages 93-105, March.
    18. Daniel Reimsbach & Bastian Hauschild, 2012. "Corporate venturing: an extended typology," Metrika: International Journal for Theoretical and Applied Statistics, Springer, vol. 23(1), pages 71-80, September.
    19. Li, Mingxiang, 2021. "Exploring novel technologies through board interlocks: Spillover vs. broad exploration," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(9).
    20. Sadovnikova, Anna & Pujari, Ashish & Mikhailitchenko, Andrey, 2016. "Radical innovation in strategic partnerships: A framework for analysis," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(5), pages 1829-1833.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:ratsoc:v:34:y:2022:i:3:p:395-418. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.